FASE 3 DETERMINACIÓN DE LAS PROPIEDADES GRAVIMÉTRICAS Y

Conclusions

In chapter four, the researcher described the results and themes that the data supported to answer the two research questions. The first research question “what are the impacts on student behavior when participating in Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Tier II supports?” was analyzed using data generated from School Wide Information Systems and Check-In Check- Out. The second question, “what are student perceptions of PBIS Tier II supports?” was asked of the eighth grade students in my case study. The data revealed positive effects for students

participating in the PBIS Tier II CICO intervention with increased instructional time, fewer Office Discipline Referrals and an overall perception of fairness and usefulness in regards to the intervention and the results from participation.

The researcher used the case study methodology to support an understanding of the effects a PBIS Tier II intervention had on student success in the general education classroom. The case study focused on how participation in the CICO intervention increased time for

instruction, reduced lost class time, and reinforced positive perceptions for participating students. The literature provided an understanding of the PBIS framework and the issues with developing a Tier II support within the framework. The case study questions were developed from the literature and were used to support a better understanding of a Tier II support effects student behavior. My research questions supported a deeper understanding of the students experience participating with CICO and how participation increased success in the general education

classroom. The research case study was conducted with five eighth grade boys in a K-8 school in a rural town in the quiet corner of Connecticut.

The data that was reviewed and analyzed to address research question one, “what are the impacts on student behavior when participating in PBIS Tier II supports?” were office discipline referrals and daily point cards for CICO. The student success was evident by a reduction of office discipline referrals for the observed time. Fewer referrals amounted to less time out of class thereby increasing instructional time for these students. The daily point cards revealed that students were able to increase success within the general education classroom for behaviors defined as Engaged Prepared Independent Collaborative with only homework completion continuing to be inconsistent. The parent daily signature step was inconsistently applied. The evidence reviewed through the artifacts and documents supported a decline in office referrals and an increase with instructional time for these students. Both of these findings are positive impacts and serve to answer research question one.

The second research question was queried using surveys and individual interviews. The pre and post survey results established fairness of the CICO program, as developed at this school and implemented for this group of boys, and usefulness for success for themselves and others as the primary opinions of the group with an increase of approval over time. The belief that the intervention was fair and useful for them allowed for students to feel invested and put forth effort. The only resistance was with the parent signature piece, as found with the daily point cards. The interviews further supported these opinions. The students positively expressed a belief that the intervention was fair and useful. The students had buy-in to the program because they specifically were invested in establishing their reward menu for success. Buy-in generates effort.

An unexpected revelation for the researcher was that the data indicated students felt that the intervention had negative effects on their social standing. When developing incentives and rewards for this group, four out of five students wanted the opportunity to choose a friend to bring with them to their reward time. Initially they all thought it was the best idea. When the researcher reviewed the post surveys, two students wrote side comments beside question number three, which asked the student if the intervention used to deal with the problem might cause problems with friends. The comments were “kids begging” and “problems.” These comments were flushed out when the researcher asked question three during the interviews. Students were asked if there was anything they would change or suggest about the CICO program. One of the boys summed it up when he said, “I don’t use ‘bring a friend’ for my reward. It’s too stressful. Everybody starts bothering me all day. Then teachers get mad at me ‘cause kids are talking to me in class.” This statement was also supported by the data generated from question 21 on the teacher survey, which asks the level of the teachers’ agreement regarding whether or not the intervention is disruptive to other students. Three teachers specifically indicated a strong

agreement to this question with side comments that specifically stated the disruption was because other students are leaving class early as part of the incentive for another student.

Implications for Practice

In review of the literature and the data from this case study, the following implications for practice of a PBIS Tier II intervention would support and increase the opportunity for student success in the general education classroom. These would include correlating the Tier II support expectations with the common expectations of school wide PBIS, obtaining student buy-in with the program using collaborative development of the reward menu and reaching out to parents directly to support involvement with student success with the return of signed point cards.

Correlating the expectations for a CICO program with the common expectations of school wide PBIS supports a successful implementation of the intervention. Having common language throughout the day for positive reinforcement, in this case study EPIC, allows for fluid behavior management and supports for students with a Tier II need. This positive reinforcement can be done with a flooding of tickets for demonstrating an EPIC behavior or in whatever

manner the token economy for the reward system is being implemented for CICO participants. A solid program aligns positive identification of appropriate behavior expectations expected from students receiving the intervention with the common expectations of school wide PBIS (Flannery et al., 2010). It is important to have correlation and consistency through the tiered supports. Students that require multilevel supports with common language and expectations benefit from an increase of acknowledgment of appropriate behaviors through flooding of Tier I

acknowledgements.

Obtaining student buy-in with the intervention by collaborative development of the reward menu supports the student need to have a program that is useful and authentic for their needs (Bradshaw et al., 2011; Sugai et al., 2008). Program participants should be part of the development process when establishing a reward menu. Students will work harder for success when the reward is something that they have created (Sugai et al., 2008). Allowing students to incorporate peer involvement within their individualized rewards also supports student buy-in for the intervention, especially among adolescents, which was the age group for this case study.

Reaching out to parents directly can help increase support for student participation, promote compliance with the requirements of the program and support positive reinforcement of the student’s effort to manage behavior daily. The CICO intervention was developed to support the student who has the need for adult attention as the function of their behavior. Success with

the return of anything requiring a signature of an adult at home can be problematic for some students and cause a perception of failure for something beyond the student’s control. To increase the probability for parental participation, it is recommended that the CICO coordinator make contact with home to establish a connection and support student need for parental

participation. Parent participation with CICO raises the probability of student success (Sugai et al., 2008).

Suggestions for Future Research

An important future direction for research into the CICO program and other similar secondary level interventions is to evaluate its impact on overall school discipline. The purpose of the secondary level, targeted intervention in a three-tiered preventative model is to quickly remediate problems while they are still emerging, thereby reducing the number of students with problem behavior in the school (Sugai et al, 2002). Since the participants of this study were eighth graders only, it would be an important next step to conduct some pre-post comparisons on overall levels of school ODRs based on CICO implementation across grade levels.

This study would work well in another small, one school district. The research questions could be broadened or narrowed to evaluate certain perspectives. This research project could easily be replicated and conclusions gained from this study would benefit the school or system evaluating the data to be more effective managers of a positive behavior system or intervention system within the school’s individualized framework and structure. The researcher highly recommends further study in the area of staff development in supporting staff at the research site in working with behavioral students and/or fidelity using the CICO intervention program. The researcher also recommends that individual schools research what the best intervention program

would be when working with students at the research site in the most effective method possible to prevent negative behaviors and encourage/replace with positive behaviors.

References

Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 161-176.

Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 462-473.

Bradshaw, C. P., & Pas, E. T. (2011). A statewide scale up of positive behavioral interventions and supports: A description of the development of systems of support and analysis of adoption and implementation. School Psychology Review, 40(4), 530-548.

Bradshaw, C., Pas, E., Bloom, J., Barrett, S., Hershfeldt, P., Alexander, A., & Leaf, P. (2012). A state-wide partnership to promote safe and supportive schools: The PBIS Maryland initiative. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research, 39(4), 225-237.

Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008).

Implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 1-26.

Carter, S. L. (2007). Education and training. Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 301-316

Carr, E. G. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4-16.

Colvin, G., & Fernandez, E. (2000). Sustaining effective behavior support systems in an elementary school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(4), 251-253.

Creswell, J. H. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Crone, D.A., Horner, R.H., & Hawken, L.S. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press

De Pry, R. L., & Sugai, G. (2002). The effect of active supervision and pre-correction on minor behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavior Education, 11(4), 255-267.

Devers, K., & Frankel, R., (2000). Study design in qualitative research—2: Sampling and data collection strategies. Education for Health, 13(2), 263–271.

Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feinstein, S. (2003). School-wide positive behavior supports. The Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 163-173.

Flannery, K. Brigid, E. M. Guest, X., & Horne, R. H. (2010). School-wide positive behavior supports. Principal Leadership, 11(1), 38-43.

Handler, M. W., Rey, J., Connell, J., Their, K., Feinberg, A., & Putnam, R. (2007). Practical considerations in creating school-wide positive behavior support in public schools. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 29-39.

Hershfeldt, P. A., Pell, K., Sechrest, R., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2012). Lessons learned coaching teachers in behavior management: The PBIS plus coaching model. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 22(4), 280-299.

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2000). School-wide behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(4), 231-232.

Horner, R. H. (2004). The school-wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(1), 3-12.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., Ingram, K., Todd, A. W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Boland, J. B. (2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 10-23.

Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. (2004). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(3), 131-47.

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. (2013). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice (10th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 701-12.

Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. M. (2012). Got data? Now what? Creating and leading cultures of inquiry. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Luiselli, J. K, Putnam, R. F, Handler, M. W, & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25(2-3), 183-198

Luiselli, J. K., Putman, R. F., & Sunderland, M. (2002). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 4(3), 182-188.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd.ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Stormont, M. (2013). Classroom-level positive behavior supports in schools implementing SW-PBIS identifying areas for enhancement. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(1), 39-50.

Ross, S., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 747-59.

Ruona, W. E. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holdton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 223-263). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Sadler, C., & Sugai, G. (2009). Effective behavior and instructional support: A district model for early identification and prevention of reading and behavior problems. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(1), 35-46.

Safran, S. P. (2006). Using the effective behavior supports survey to guide development of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(1), 3-9.

Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69, 361–373.

Salkind, N. J. (2013). Excel statistics: A quick guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods-whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23(4), 334-340.

Scott, T. M., & Hunter, J. (2001). Initiating school-wide support systems: An administrator’s guide to the process. Beyond Behavior, 11, 13–15.

Sugai, G. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavior assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-43.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior support in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 130-5.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223-237.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. M. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315–350). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Horner, R. H. (2008). School-wide positive behavior supports: A continuum of positive behavior supports for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 5-6.

Tobin, T. J., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2002). School-wide and individualized effective behavior support: An explanation and an example. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(1), 51- 75.

Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (2002). Preventing problem behaviors: Primary, secondary, and tertiary level preventions for young children. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior

Intervention, 2(3), 125-44.

Walker, B. (2005). School-wide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 194-204.

Warren, Jared S., Bohanon-Edmonson, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Wickham, D., Griggs, P., Shelly E. & Beech, S.E. (2006). School-wide positive behavior support: Addressing behavior problems that impede student learning. Educational Psychology Review, 4(18), 36-41.

Witt, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Witt, J. C., & Martens, B. K. (1983), Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms. Psychology in Schools, 20, 510–517.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Appendix A

Children’s Intervention Rating Profile (Witt & Elliot, 1985)

Parent initials: Student initials: Date:

We are interested in learning your ideas about the intervention and support program that you are now beginning. Below are some sentences. You may or may not agree with the sentences. For each one, please circle the number that describes how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Using the following guide:

5 = I disagree very much 4 = I sort of disagree 3 = I don’t agree or disagree 2 = I sort of agree

1 = I agree very much

I agree

very much I sort of agree

I don’t agree

or disagree disagree I sort of very much I disagree 1. The intervention used to deal

with the problem is fair.

1 2 3 4 5

2. The teacher/parent is too hard (mean).

1 2 3 4 5

3. The intervention used to deal with the problem might cause problems with my friends.

1 2 3 4 5

4. There are better ways to handle this problem.

1 2 3 4 5

5. The intervention used would be good for other children.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I like the intervention used to handle this problem.

1 2 3 4 5

7. The intervention used for this problem would help other children do better in school.

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B

Children’s Intervention Rating Profile (Witt & Elliot, 1985) Parent initials: Student initials: Date:

We are interested in learning your ideas about the intervention and support program that you are now finishing. Below are some sentences. You may or may not agree with the sentences. For each one, please circle the number that describes how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Using the following guide:

5 = I disagree very much 4 = I sort of disagree 3 = I don’t agree or disagree 2 = I sort of agree

1 = I agree very much

I agree very much I sort of agree I don’t agree or disagree I sort of disagree I disagree very much 1. The intervention used to

deal with the problem was fair.

1 2 3 4 5

2. The teacher/parent was too hard (mean).

1 2 3 4 5

3. The intervention used to deal with the problem might cause problems with my friends.

1 2 3 4 5

4. There are better ways to handle this problem.

1 2 3 4 5

5. The intervention used would be good for other children.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I like the intervention used to handle this problem.

1 2 3 4 5

7. The intervention used for this problem would help other children do better in school.

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix C